About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is i have hadtors than with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was the start of
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
to perform a same-sex marriage in your view if he objected based on conscience? >> well i think the pentagon regulations show that same-sex marriage is legal in nine states. >> would a chaplain be able to bow out of that procedure based on conscience? >> certainly. what we don't want, though, is -- senator his point is for someone to be denied to be married in a chapel or a facility and so on. but certainly as a matter of conscience, yes. what i'm talking about is strict interpretation of defending the law which defends rights. >> thank you for clarifying that and thank you for calling me early on. we had our conversation on january 8, and i appreciated that opportunity. you just said that your statements over time have been -- have gotten a lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible. that is entirely appropriate in this context. chairman levin mentioned that in his opening statement that in speaking your mind you had said several things that caused him concern, and he asked you about that. senator inhofe said several of your statements included what he called policy reversals based o
. >> thank you. the pentagon made an announcement they would open up occupational specialties including confidantes to women. do you plan to try to block all or some of that plan? >> no. we have a process. i met with the undersecretary yesterday morning. the senate armed services committee can look incrementally as they make these changes. we can either talk them out of it or introduce legislation. if something that we do not know yet what they will come out with and they hear from the service chiefs, we will see what is reasonable. we will use our own judgment. i caution people who are hysterical about this. let's wait and see what they do. we will stop the bad stuff. >> the defense cemetery has said any exceptions will have to get approved by him. the implication is there are going to move fairly dramatically in this direction. do you have any concerns right now about what they have said so far about basically opening up all of these specialities to women? >> if they do that, they're going to have a fight on their hands. we do have that responsibility. if it means introducing legislat
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
-israel, homophobic politicians eager to get the pentagon's budget. pushback during meetings appears to have been effective, said an official helping him to prepare for the hearing. the effort to vilify hagel and his record as remain at a bus but has not reached the type of crescendo that has doomed high- profile political nominations in the past. 'we have had a very impressive strategy for tackling some of the issues that have been raised,' the hagel aide said on wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the nomination's outlook. that is not to say that the confirmation is a foregone conclusion, supporters concede. critics have piled on to the initial critiques with charges that hagel's ties to defense contractors and other private sector firms may create conflict of interest. senator carl levin, the chair of the senate armed services committee, says that hagel will face tough questions about his past demands. democrats outnumber republicans on the panel 14-12, but committee insiders are not assuming that hagel will get the votes of every democrat. 'the confirmation will not b
this all tie together? what would be your advice to the president on how the pentagon is going to address all of those budget constraints? >> well, let's start with where we are. the pentagon is adjusting and i think, responsible -- responsibly to our future based on the budget control act of 2011. you know the details of that. the chief has submitted plans as we rebalance and refit and unwind a second war and all the dynamics that are changing them since the last decade. it gives us new opportunities. audits, all the acquisition focus, accountability, we are being forced -- the department of defense -- to take a hard look at its priorities. as i said before, it begins with mission then the resources to fulfill that mission and then what are the priorities within that mission. how do you finance it all? if sequestration would to take effect, then all of this will be affected. that is exactly right. we've deferred some decisions. we set back some of the schedules on some of our ships, planes, decisions on a number of things. it isn't just the dollars that affect this but it is the planning
the rocketer which is referring to the pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women in combat roles. coming up on this edition of "the washington journal," we will be talking with kayla williams about the decision to lift the ban on combat roles. later we will take a look at the best and worst bosses on capitol hill. we will be right back after this break. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> if we turned away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> it is a bully pulpit and you have to take advantage of it. >> obesity is nothing short of a public health crisis. >> a zero antennas come up and tell me when somebody has their own agenda. >> it would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is the only one he can trust. >> many women who were first ladies, a lot of them were riders. >> they are in many cases more interesting as human beings tha
in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets that provided us some peripheral information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogation program came into existence. he went through the program, started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. a few weeks later we captured a major player. ben-al-shib. he was a go-between. this was the key to all of that. we forget that it was not
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
announcements coming out of the pentagon. i was looking at one just now because i was trying to remember the numbers. the pentagon is beefing up its cyber security force. the other one that is apparently being beefed up in these times of budgetary constraints or the special forces. tom, would you talk about that generally, and fred, if you talk about that in the broader nature of it. then we will get to the nonexistent challenge that faces us in asia. >> these new capabilities, cyber operations or whatever you want to call them, are certainly necessary and needed, and our ability to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum configured as the internet is pretty critical. it is not qualitatively different from other forms of intelligence gathering or attempts either by propaganda means or by direct attack took back the military or strategic situations. to some degree it is understandable, but as fred alluded, particularly direct action special operations unit don't just magically appear and sustain themselves. if you have seen "zero dark thirty, is a great picture of how the intelligence manhun
and hope the senate will act quickly to confirm him and put him in place in the pentagon. >> in terms of the way he answered various questions, i know you took issue with the tough question style of republican senators. is the white house pleased with how senator hagel answered questions? >> i believe he did a fine job. if you look, if you take all the news clips, not the whole performance, but the news clips that have dominated television report and on this, they have focused on a series of exchanges that i think, by any estimation, largely represent the injuring over issues like, why did you disagree with me over iraq? we are prepared to say that senator obama had a view on iraq. it was one of the reasons he ran on that position and one in 2008 against senator mccain. he vowed to end the war in iraq in a with a protected our national security interests. now, he is focused on winding down the war in afghanistan. someone bizarrely, and given that we have 56,000 americans in uniform in afghanistan, senators yesterday, in a hearing for the nomination of the secretary of defense asked ve
to pull this off. >> the pentagon has started to take steps to prepare itself for the sequestration and planning that has not taken place until now. >> they are laying off temporary employees. it is starting to happen. >> senator inhofe has been critical about not planning earlier. the >> there is a little brinkmanship going. i do believe there was a time and when each everybody said we are all against it so how can have them? there never was a path that the two sides could find that would lead them to averting it. >> the center was critical of the president in the stance of his overall military and mention three ways the president has worked for cuts, and delays, and additions to the military budget. when you talk to officers of line, and you find them as critical of the administration that what is: on average is very dramatic. this represents a huge threat to the united states. there are others that would argue it is more a regional. the ability to react is clearly limited. when you look at individual things, there are concerns. afghanistan is another issue. >> these are big and c
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
in iraq was much worse than it appeared from from afar. i was coming out of the pentagon. it was clearly unsettled. it looked much worse than we had thought. the first hope was that if we got saddam hussein, that would solve the problem. we made an effort to do that. in december, we picked up saddam. it became obvious that, as one of my guys described, a bunch of former miss -- regime guys were not really running the beginning of the resistance, the beginning of the insurgency. zarqawi had started to build a network that took trained people, or iraqi sunnis -- trained people, iraqi sunnis, who had been dislocated from their position in society, sometimes government, sometimes military might and they were terrified of the shia, which was going to be dominant in the future. you had this combination of factors that was fear of the future, frustration against foreign invaders, and then -- not as much religious extremism as sometimes is perceived. it was not really an al qaeda religious movement. it was a political movement, but he got leveraged by some very clever work by people like abu mus
education. $3 billion from the pentagon's defense fund. $7 billion from army operations. earth worm does some work for the defense department. they could get her in this. -- get hurt in this. >> representing congressional district, these cuts are irresponsible. even if you believe overtime which a reduced federal spending on defense, it hurts our national security,. job, there is a better path toward. >> there is no question what he says is true. the secretary of defense said it would be catastrophic to let sequester hit the military. >> is it's still an option? >> sequestered does not do anything about the greatest underlying problem with regard to spending. that has to do with the expansion of the welfare statement of entitlement programs. we know that is where the money is. what the sequestered does is take money out of discretionary spending. we all like in the structure, like schools, our state parks and all that. the mid balance the other side of the coin. we have added $6 trillion of last three or four years. >> it is a fact that our debt is now $16 trillion. >> what i say? the to
by the private sector. homeland has jurisdiction uniquely where the pentagon does not. or the nro doesn't over this civilian space. homeland have to be a major player. yet many in the private sector have been saying that homeland does not have the competence to do this job well. do you agree with that? >> no. [laughter] >> that is what is called a delay -- leading cancer. -- that is what we call a leading answer. perception need to catch up with reality. the department has moved light years ahead. president obama has continued to ask congress for the resources we need to do that. women talk about the interaction with the private-sector, which we do in a number of areas already -- when we talk about the interaction with the private sector, which we do in a number of areas already, the part that controls the core infrastructure with our statutory irresponsibility to help protect the nation's infrastructure. when we talk about linking those things together from a security perspective, we are not talking about a regulatory overlaid. we're talking about how do you take part of our country that is -
was coming out of the pentagon. it was clearly unsettled. it looked much worse than we had thought. the first hope was that if we got saddam hussein, that would solve the problem. we made an effort to do that. appeared from from afar. in december, we picked up saddam. it became obvious that, as one of my guys described, a bunch of former miss -- regime guys were not really running the beginning of the resistance, the beginning of the insurgency. zarqawi had started to build a network that took trained people, or iraqi sunnis -- trained people, iraqi sunnis, who had been dislocated from their position in society, sometimes government, sometimes military might and they were terrified of the shia, which was going to be dominant in the future. you had this combination of factors that was fear of the future, frustration against foreign invaders, and then -- not as much religious extremism as sometimes is perceived. it was not really an al qaeda religious movement. it was a political movement, but he got leveraged by some very clever work by people like abu musab al-zarqawi. we were very sure he wa
-- september 1, 2001. there is smoke in the ground in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda @? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets of the provided us some peripheral information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogations program came into existence. he went through the program, started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. if you later -- if you sit recaptured a major player. he was a go-between. this was the key to all
military leaders the pentagon to cut from unsuccessful and outdated programs and put more money into the most successful and important programs. with that said, the only thing worse than the defense cuts and sequestration is no cuts at all. if we don't have the sequestration cuts at the top line revenue level went we will increase the debt ceiling with almost nothing to show for it. part of the reasons why the house republicans this week, extended the debt ceiling for three months to feel out paul ryan and his team to draft a budget that gets us balanced in 10 years but also protects the department of defense from further cuts because they have already been cut by $500 billion. >> do you get the idea, do you get the sense that americans are tired of world business. that doing some business here at home is gaining traction with people. are they world leadership weary? is the american hour ticking to a close? >> i think there is a degree of war weariness among the american people. it is not surprising. when your commander in chief is war weary you will be as well. when i was leadi
, a billion dollars from special education. $3 billion from the pentagon's defense sfund. $7 billion from army operations. and earthworm does some work for the defense department. so earthworm could get hurt in this, couldn't it? >> that's right. the number one function of the federal government is to keep the people safe and representing the highest concentration of men and women in uniform, i can tell you that these cuts are irresponsible even if i believe we should reduce federal spending. it hurts job creation. there's a better path forward. and we should reduce it over time not over night. >> go ahead. >> there's no question about what he says it's true about the defense cuts. the secretary of defense said it would be catastrophic to let sequester hit the military for half a trillion -- >> but you still think it's an option -- >> half a trillion dollars. let me put the other side to you. i should add too that sequester doesn't do anything about the greatest underlying problem with regard to spending. and that has to do with the expansion of the welfare state and entitlement programs and t
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)